IS AN ATTACK ON IRAQ JUSTIFIED?

[cc100]

[Janette]

No

[Sticks]

If we are not prepared to take action then we give encouragement to rogue regimes to misbehave.

No one will take notice of the UN again.

[Janette]

Sticks, you and I will NEVER agree on this so let's just leave it where it is.

:thumbs:

[steve_o]

I think it is justified, as soon as they get that evil sod out of iraq the better.:mad:

[steve_o]

Well I had to put my twopence worth in.:shocked:

[Kaz]

We can talk about anything on this forum, Splodge - the only thing we don't like is people falling out or getting nasty with each other, and I'm delighted to say that that hardly ever happens.

Steve - you're perfectly entitled to give your opinion. I don't completely agree with it, but that certainly doesn't mean we're going to fall out as a result! :laugh:

:wavey:

[Sticks]

I think we have to avoid using emotive words is that is possible. Words like "s#d" do not add much to debate, irrespective of which side we stand.

[steve_o]

Thanks for that Sticks, I'll say what I like . Like you do. I don't need a lecture off you thank you very much.

[susieq]

It's a hard one to call. I don't think we're being given enough, honest, information to enable me to make an informed judgement.

I do think however, that the goalposts appear to be moving every day and I must admit to being a bit unsure as to what President Bush actually wants Iraq to do now. I thought he wanted them to dispose of weapons to avert a war. According to the news tonight this appears to be what the Iraqi regime is doing (under the eyes of the UN Inspectorate) but that doesn't appear to satisfy Pres. Bush. I'm now every confused!!

I'm just glad I haven't got a child old enough to be 'called up', else I'd be a very worried mum right now.

[Janette]

Originally posted by susieq
According to the news tonight this appears to be what the Iraqi regime is doing (under the eyes of the UN Inspectorate) but that doesn't appear to satisfy Pres. Bush.


That is exactly the problem Susieq, President Bush wants a war. It doesn't matter if the Iraqis roll out all their supposed weapons of mass destruction and blow the lot up in one go!

President Bush is going to have a war because he wants a war and that proves that he is a very dangerous man!

[susieq]

Got it in one Janette - that was exactly my point. As usual it took me three years to get round to it!!!!

It now appears that no matter WHAT Iraq does in terms of disposal of weapons etc, President Bush is intent of having a war - justified or not. It's a sad state of affairs when the men in power can't remember the adage 'Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people'.

It's a shame they don't think of the people who elected them, when they seem to trample over public opinion and try and railroad us into a war that (it would appear) very few people want.

Politicians eh - wouldn't given 'em house room!!!!!

[steve_o]

Your right if it was to drag on for years with ordinary people being called up I'd be against that. But we can only hope it wont get to that, and I'm sure it wont. the people of Iraq can't wait to see the back of him. They just want to live ordinary lives just like the rest of us do. Blair's worried because he doesn't want nasty weapons being sold to dodgy people, I know we've probably sold them most of them, but that was years ago and the worlds changed and lifes not fair. Blairs worried he knows that if something like that happens in America with civilians, being harmed by Chemicals or Germs or radiation the yanks will nuke anyone they can blame for it. They've used them before, and prob would again. It's best they get rid of the threat now and Sadams a threat, instead of just leaving it unchecked. I know it's unfair and people will die, but it could be a hell of a lot worse if he's just left and terriorists get hold of them, I mean Sadam and most of that part of the world seem to hate Americans and the Americans are paranoid about it. Which is only fair after what happended to the the twin towers. Sucide bombers are the worst people going you can't reason with them, and since that day all trust was gone, and it just makes them dangerous as well as the politicians there scared that's why these things get bad, but I'd rather have the policticans myself, even if they are a pain, there trying to do what's best for us at the end of the day. It's whats taken hundreds of years to build up and there not going to let extremists get in the way of that, I wouldn't neither.

[susieq]

Your right if it was to drag on for years with ordinary people being called up I'd be against that.


I think any right minded person would be against a conflict which could drag on for years but, lest we forget, we DID actually sell most of the weapons & technology to the Iraqis - the very stuff we're now saying they should get rid of.

Yes, you're right, Saddam is, no doubt, a very evil man who runs a very cruel regime BUT let's be honest, he's not the only one in the world and President Bush isn't threatening to march into their country is he? What about North Korea? They've got nuclear weapons that can reach the US - Bush spouted a lot of high handed talk about what they were going to do to the North Koreans and has done precisely nothing .

What about India & Pakistan? Again, they have a nuclear capability but no-one's talking of sending a task force over there to sort THEM out.

There are dictatorships, human rights abuses and cruel governments the world over (half of them in South America!) but President Bush seems quite happy to let them continue. AND the USA itself is breaching every article of the Geneva Convention by it's treatment of 'prisoners' in Guantanemo Bay.

Doesn't it make you wonder why Saddam Hussein is now 'villain of the month'? Why pick on Iraq and leave North Korea etc alone? What has Iraq got that these other dictatorships haven't? Couldn't be oil could it?

Call me cynical, call me naive, but I have serious doubts about the 'motives' behind this.

[Janette]

Hear hear!


:thumbs:

[steve_o]

Oh well, this talk will just go on and on and I've had my twopence worth anyway. Let's see how it goes if and when it starts, otherwise were just saying the same things over again. If it's a massacre then fair enough, I hope to god it isnt.

[cc100]

a few weeks ago, it was all "weapons of mass destruction".

now that the inspectors see there arent any, its all "moral war"

does that mean ,if hussein complies- will he be allowed to remain in power?

als why call him saddam all the time?

do we call mugabe robert? or mussolini ben?

also if american "intelligence" is anything to go by then theyll probably go for nasser husein instead of saddam hussein.

[steve_o]

That's true:laugh: I like it.:thumbs:

:spin: